Re: Strang shutdown mechanism with Debian
According to Stephen Zander:
> >>>>> "Miquel" == Miquel van Smoorenburg <miquels@cistron.nl> writes:
> Miquel> Well, we already have K91apache, so only K92 - K99 are
> Miquel> available. It's almost impossible to fix this on existing
> Miquel> running systems you know. We also have to assume a user
> Miquel> has not used K92 - K99 him/herself (which we can't) or
> Miquel> otherwise the system will break.
>
> Miquel> We already use 5 K levels, and people may want to add
> Miquel> more. We only have 8 K levels free if we asume they are
> Miquel> not used by the local sysadm.
>
> No we don't.
Yes we do. And I'm not going to explain this all *again*.
> Miquel> What if we choose to use
>
> Miquel> K92sendsigs K93urandom K94umountfs K95mdutils.sh K99halt
>
> K92sendsigs belongs much higher in the K* sequence if it does what I
> think it does.
Nope. You clearly do not understand the mechanism at all.
> The only time particular scripts should care about their position
> within a K* *or* S* sequence is when they require the services
> set-up/shut-down by another script.
Yes. And for the scripts I am talking about this is very important.
> For most scripts, particularly at reboot, these dependencies are
> non-existant. Simply put all debian scripts as a particular number
> *unless* the maintainer can show why they should occur earlier or
> later.
Which is what I did if you had bothered to read the rest of the thread.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
miquels@cistron.nl | eventually eliminating it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: